Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Is The Jewish Apocrypha Inspired Scripture? Pt. 3

By S. S.

The Testimony of the Church Fathers

We shall now begin our
examination of the writings of some of the Church Fathers, as well as some of
the medieval theologians, to see what their views were regarding the OT canon.
It should be pointed out that certain Fathers, perhaps many, believed that
certain Apocryphal books were in fact inspired. Yet there were many other
Fathers who rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the OT canon held by the Jews.
As noted Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, writes:

“… Towards the close of the
second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became
known that they were now united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books,
hesitations began to creep in; Melito of Sardes (fl. 170), for
example, satisfied himself, after a visit to Palestine, that the Hebrew
canon was the authoritative one. Origen, it is true, made extensive use of
the Apocrypha (as indeed of other truly apocryphal works), but his
familiarity as a scholar with the Hebrew Bible made him conscious that there
was a problem to be faced. A suggestion he advanced was that, when
disputing with Jews, Christians should confine themselves to such books as
they recognized; but he added with caution that the further extension of
such a self-denying ordinance would necessitate the destruction of the copies
of the Scriptures currently read in the churches.

“It was in the fourth century,
particularly where the scholarly standards of Alexandrian Christianity were
influential, that these doubts began to make their mark officially. The view
which now commend itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented
by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius, was
that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position
outside the canon proper. Cyril was quite uncompromising; books not in the
public canon were not to be studied even in private. Athanasius displayed
greater flexibility, ruling that they might be used by catechumens for the
purpose of instruction. Yet it should be noted (a) that no such scruples seem
to have troubled adherents of the Antiochene School, such as John Chrysostom
and Theodoret; and (b) that even those Eastern writers who took the strict line
with the canon when it was formally under discussion were profuse in their
citations from the Apocrypha on other occasions. This official reserve,
however, persisted for long in the East. As late as the eighth century we
find John Damascene maintaining the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books and
excluding Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, although he was ready to
acknowledge their admirable qualities.

“The West, as a whole, was
inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen
with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them
into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as
inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two
books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2
Maccabees as ‘not canonical, but ecclesiastical’, i.e. to be read by
Christians but not added as authoritative for doctrine. Jerome, conscious of
the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and
anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that
anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the
canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books
for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however,
the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense…”
(Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition [HarperSan Francisco,
1978], pp. 54-55; bold emphasis ours)

Pay careful attention to
Kelly’s statements that some of the Fathers recognized the authority of the
Jews to establish and determine the OT canon, which is the same point we made
in the first part of our discussion.

In this section, we
will quote from those Fathers who accepted the Jewish canon in order to offset
the claims made by Rome’s apologists that the majority of the early Church
Fathers upheld the Apocrypha as inspired revelation, or that the Church
unanimously accepted the Apocryphal books as part of the canon. All bold and
capital emphasis will be ours.

MELITO
OF SARDIS

Melito, to his brother
Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed
a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the
Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an
accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their
order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith,
and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou
in thy yearning after God, esteemeth these things above all else, struggling to
attain salvation. Accordingly when I came to East and came to the place where
these things were preached and done, I LEARNED ACCURATELY THE BOOKS OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as
follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,
Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two;
the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book;
Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers
(Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Volume II [NPNF2], Eusebius, Church History,
IV. 26.13-14)

Melito mentions all the
books with the exception of Esther. F. F. Bruce comments on Melito’s reference
to “Wisdom”:

“None of the writings of the
‘Septuagint plus’ is listed: the ‘Wisdom’ included is not the Greek book of
Wisdom but an alternative name for proverbs. According to Eusebius, Hegessipus
and Irenaeus and many other writers of their day called the Proverbs of Solomon
‘the all-virtuous Wisdom.’” (Bruce, The Canon, p. 71)

HILARY
OF POITIERS

The Law of the Old
Testament is reckoned IN TWENTY-TWO BOOKS, that they might fit the number of
Hebrew letters. They are counted according TO THE TRADITION OF THE ANCIENT
FATHERS. (Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue, Dr. Michael Woodward,
Translator)

CYRIL
OF JERUSALEM

“Now these the
divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament teach us… Read
the Divine Scriptures, THE TWENTY-TWO BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, THESE THAT
HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED BY THE SEVENTY-TWO INTERPRETERS.” (Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers 2, Vol. 7, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures
IV. 33-36)

ATHANASIUS

“There are, then, of
the Old Testament, TWENTY-TWO BOOKS IN NUMBER; for, as I have heard, it is
handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; in their
respective order and names being as follows…” (NPNF2, Vol. 4, Athanasius Letter
39.2-7)

We should point out
that Athanasius omitted Esther from his canon, while including Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah as additions to canonical Jeremiah. Some feel that he would
have most likely included the additions to the book of Daniel as well. Yet,
despite these additions to the canonical works, Athanasius believed that these
22 books alone were the divinely inspired OT Scriptures from which the Church
was to draw her doctrine of salvation. He even said that no man was to add to
these books. Athanasius clearly distinguished between the truly authoritative
and canonical writings from those that he considered to be useful reading. He
listed a number of Apocryphal books and Esther in this latter category.

EPIPHANIUS
OF SALAMIS

“There are twenty-seven
books given the Jews by God. They are counted AS TWENTY-TWO, however, like the
letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which the Jews reckon as five
are double.” (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi
Studies, edited by Martin Krause, James Robinson, Frederik Wisse (Leiden;
Brill), 187)

GREGORY
OF NAZIANZUS

“Receive the number and
names of the holy books… These TWENTY-TWO books of the Old Testament are
counted according to the twenty-two letters of the Jews.” (Dogmatica Carmina,
Book I, Section I, Carmen XII, PG 37:471-474)

BASIL
THE GREAT

“Why 22 divinely
inspired books? I respond that in place of numbers ... For it should not be
ignored that the 22 books of the Jews handed down, which correspond to the
number of Hebrew letters, are not without reason 22. Just as the 22 letters are
the introduction to wisdom, etc. so too the 22 books of Scripture are the
foundation and introduction to the wisdom of God and the knowledge of things.”
(Philocalia, c. 3, edition of Paris 1618, p. 63)

ORIGEN

Although Origen felt
that a number of the Apocryphal books were part of the revelation given by God,
he does recognize that the Jews held to a different canon:

“It should be stated
that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, ARE
TWENTY-TWO… THE TWENTY-TWO BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS are the following: Genesis…
Exodus… Leviticus… Numbers… Deuteronomy… Jesus, the son of Nave… Judges and
Ruth… the first and second of Kings... the third and fourth of Kings… the
Chronicles, the First and Second in one… Esdras, First and Second in one… the
book of Psalms… the Proverbs of Solomon… Ecclesiastes… the Song of Songs…
Isaiah… Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one… Daniel… Ezekiel…
Job… Esther… And BESIDES THESE there are the Maccabees…” (NPNF2, Vol. 1,
Eusebius, Church History, VI.25.1-2)

F. F. Bruce commented
on Origen's list of canonical books:

“Origen lists the books
according to their Greek and Hebrew names. He excludes from his total of
twenty-two the books of Maccabees (how many they are, he does not say). But
(apart from Maccabees) he has listed only twenty-one books: one, namely the
book of the Twelve Prophets, has accidentally dropped out in the course of
transmission. His twenty-two books (when the book of the Twelve is restored to
the list) correspond to the twenty-four of the Hebrew Bible, except that he
includes the Letter of Jeremiah (an item in the 'Septuagintal plus')
along with Lamentations as part of Jeremiah.

“In this same commentary on
Psalm 1, Origen enlarges on the appropriateness of the number twenty-two.
'For,' he says, 'as the twenty-two letters appear to form an introduction to
the wisdom and the divine teachings which are written down for men and women in
these characters, so the twenty-two divinely-inspired books form an ABC into
the wisdom of God and an introduction to the knowledge of all that is.'

“Origen's care to confine the
books listed to those found in the Hebrew Bible (apart from his inclusion, by
an oversight, of the 'Letter of Jeremiah') is the more noteworthy because the
evidence suggests that the church of Alexandria, in which he was brought up,
did not draw the boundaries of holy scriptures very sharply. When Origen moved to Caesarea he not only
found himself among Christians with a different tradition from that of
Alexandria but also had opportunity of contact and discussion with Palestinian
Jews. From there he acquired some knowledge of the Hebrew language and
Hebrew scriptures – enough to enable him to complete his Hexapla project – and it was plain to him that, when dealing
with Jews, he could appeal to no authoritative scriptures but those which they
acknowledged as canonical.” (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp.
74-75; bold emphasis ours)

Thus, it seems almost
certain that Origen held to the Hebrew canon of the Scriptures. But Bruce does
note that Origen was inconsistent throughout his life since he seemed to change
his position regarding the canonical status of certain Apocryphal books such as
the History of Susannah:

“Even so, Origen made free use
of the 'Septuagintal plus' and did not hesitate to refer to other works not
even included in the Septuagint, without implying that they were among the
books which are indisputably recognized as divinely inspired. His attitude to
some books changed over the years. At
one time, like Clement, he was happy to quote 1 Enoch as the work of the
antediluvian patriarch, but later doubted its authority. One might get the
impression that, where the relation of the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint is
concerned, Origen is anxious to eat his cake and have it. He is certainly
unwilling to deviate from the regular practice of the church.” (Bruce, pp. 75,
77; bold emphasis ours)

One thing is for
certain: Origen provides evidence for the Jewish canon being identical to the
Protestant OT canon.

RUFINUS

36…. This then is the
Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the
New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, "All
Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction." And
therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, AS WE HAVE LEARNT FROM
THE TRADITION OF THE FATHERS, the books of the New and of the Old Testament,
which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been
inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of
Christ.

37. Of the Old
Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of
Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave,
(Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then fourbooks
of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which
is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and
Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one
hook; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books
to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of
the Old Testament.

38. But it should be
known that there are also other books WHICH OUR FATHERS CALL NOT
"CANONICAL" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say,
Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of
the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title
Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of
the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of
Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book
which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called
The Two Ways,150 or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in
the Churches, BUT NOT APPEALED TO FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF DOCTRINE. The
other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have
read in the Churches. THESE ARE THE TRADITIONS WHICH THE FATHERS HAVE HANDED
DOWN TO US, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in
this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first
elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains
of the Word of God their draughts must be taken. (Early Church Fathers
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume III: Rufinus, Commentary
on the Apostles’ Creed, 36-38: online edition: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xiii.xxxvii.html)

JEROME

“And so there are also
TWENTY-TWO BOOKS of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the
prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth
(Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be
reckoned separately; we should thus have TWENTY-FOUR BOOK OF THE OLD LAW.” (NPFN2,
Vol. 6., St. Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Version of Samuel and Kings, Prologus
Galeetus)

Jerome writes in regard
to the Apocrypha:

As, then, the Church
reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, BUT DOES NOT ADMIT THEM AMONG
THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES, so let it also read these two Volumes [Sam- Wisdom of
Solomon and Ecclesiasticus] for the edification of the people, NOT TO GIVE
AUTHORITY TO DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. (NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces
to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel)

GREGORY
THE GREAT

Gregory the Great was
bishop of Rome from AD 590-6”04. Writing in his commentary on the book of Job,
Gregory rejected the book of 1 Maccabees as canonical:

With reference to which
particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not
Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring
forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an
elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).” (Library
of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church [Oxford: Parker, 1845], Gregory
the Great, ‘Morals on the Book of Job’, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.
34, p. 424)

Evangelical author
William Webster notes:

“This is significant, coming
as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees
long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was
useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome.
This is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under
Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by Augustine and
the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Gregory's comments on I Maccabees are from
his Morals on Job. There are some who suggest that this was simply
Gregory's opinion as a private theologian and that he did not write his
commentary while bishop of Rome. The truth is, however, that he wrote part of
his commentary prior to his position as Roman bishop while he was in
Constantinople, and part while he was the pope of Rome. Roman Catholic
patristics scholar, William Jurgens, gives the following background on Gregory's
commentary:

When Gregory, while
Apocrisarius in Constantinople, met Bishop Leander of Seville about the year
578, Leander asked him to write a commentary on the Book of Job. Gregory's
response was his Moralia or Moralium libri or Expositio in librum Iob, at which
he worked intermittently for many years, finally completing the work in
thirty-five books about the year 595 A.D. The Moral Teachings is devoted mostly
to discussions of questions in moral theology and of practical applications of
Gregory's solutions. In a sense it may be regarded as the first manual of moral
and ascetic theology.[132]

“Note that Jurgens affirms
that Gregory did write his commentary while he was pope. Additionally, in
asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, Gregory was not sharing his
personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the
Church of his day. Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary
to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly,
when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term
in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan above. The term had both a broad and
a narrow meaning. Broadly, it included all the books that were acceptable for
reading in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha. But, in its narrower
meaning, only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical
for the purposes of establishing doctrine.

“Furthermore, the assertion
that Gregory's Morals on Job was not an official Church document is
erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for
the entire Western
Church on Job. That this
commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary
for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official
Church document. Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the
Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop
of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical
status of the Apocrypha.” (The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3:
From Jerome to the Reformation: http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)

We end this section
with the comments of two Catholic cardinals, the first being Cardinal Cajetan
(1469-1534 AD.). During the time of the Reformation, he staunchly opposed
Martin Luther. The Catholic Encyclopedia highlights some of his many
outstanding achievements and his great importance:

"Dominican cardinal,
philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy;
died 9 August, 1534 at Rome… In 1501 he was made procurator general of his
order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza.
On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named
vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the
generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the
promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as
the chief means of attaining the end of the order.… About the fourth year of
his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by
appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the
disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them
with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical
supremacy of the pope… On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope
Leo X… He was later made Bishop of Gaeta… In theology Cajetan is justly ranked
as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school… To
Clement VII he was the "lamp of the Church", and everywhere in his
career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and
pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.”
(Webster, The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3)

William Webster writes:

“Cajetan wrote a commentary on
all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He
stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict
sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as
it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to
properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under
Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries
on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith,
Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the
canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou
disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the
sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For
the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the
correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the
bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the
canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule
for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that
is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being
received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help
of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which
Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.[129]
(Ibid.)

Next come the
statements of Cardinal Ximenes. In the early sixteenth century, just prior to
the Reformation, being Archbishop of Toledo, he produced, in collaboration with
the leading theologians of his day, an edition of the Bible called the Biblia
Complutensia. In the Preface, he states in regard to the Apocrypha, that
the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the
additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore
not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points
of doctrine. He does say that the Church allowed them to be read for purposes
of edification. Both the Bible and its Preface had the official consent and
authority of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated. The New Catholic
Encyclopedia acknowledges:

“The first Bible which may be
considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcala (in Latin Complutum, hence the
name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1517, under the supervision and at the
expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city
by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of
Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, ‘to revive the languishing study of the
Sacred Scriptures’; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students
with accurate printed texts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. His Bible
contains also the Chaldaic Targum of the Pentateuch and an interlinear Latin
translation of the Greek Old Testament. The work is in six large volumes, the
last of which is made up of a Hebrew and Chaldaic dictionary, a Hebrew grammar,
and Greek dictionary. It is said that only six hundred copies were issued; but
they found their way into the principal libraries of Europe and had
considerable influence on subsequent editions of the Bible." (New
Catholic Encyclopedia [McGraw Hill: New York, 1967), The Polyglot Bibles;
bold emphasis ours)

The late NT textual
critic B. F. Westcott wrote:

“At the dawn of the
Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of
the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal
Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia – the
lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and
the great glory of the Spanish press – separates the Apocrypha from the
Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which
the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the
establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double
translation." (Westcott, A General
Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [MacMillan:
Cambridge, 1889], pp. 470-471; bold emphasis ours)

Bruce M. Metzger
describes the historical situation for the Western Church just prior to the
Reformation:

“Subsequent to Jerome's time
and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the
more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and
unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for
example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal
Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of
the Bible which he edited (1514-17)… Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent
at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon
in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,
which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention
to Jerome's separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and
maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of
faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful.” (Metzger, An
Introduction to the Apocrypha [Oxford: New York, 1957], p. 180; bold
emphasis ours)

Hence, even up to the
time of the Council of Trent in 1546, whenRome officially canonized the
Apocrypha as part if its OT canon, there were both Popes and Cardinals that
outright rejected the Apocryphal writings as sacred scripture. Westcott makes
these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

“This fatal decree, in which
the Council… gave a new aspect to the whole question of the Canon, was ratified
by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar
distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study
for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by
the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the
spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches,
how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of
the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the
West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an ecclesiastical
usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has
already been adduced.” (Ibid., p. 478; bold emphasis ours)

CONCLUSION

The data which we have
gathered demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the Apocrypha should not
be reckoned as part of God’s inspired OT canon. Both the Palestinian and
Alexandrian Jews show no acceptance of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha themselves
provide evidence against its inclusion within the OT canon. The Lord Jesus and
the inspired NT writers never quote the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. Many of
the Church Fathers flatly rejected the Apocrypha from their canon of the OT.
Finally, even up to the time of the Reformation there were Cardinals of the
Roman Catholic Church that rejected the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture, who even
had the very approval of the Pope himself!

This means that it
isn’t the Protestant OT which is to be viewed as being later in time, but
rather the Roman Catholic OT which is much later, finding little support from
the Jews of antiquity as well as from the Lord Jesus who confirmed the Jewish
canon.

Recommended Reading

We highly recommend the
following books and articles for those interested in doing further research
into the issue of the OT canon:

1. Roger Beckwith, The
Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early
Judaism, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., December 1986, ISBN 0802836178.

2. Norman Geisler &
William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, August
1986, ISBN 0802429165.

4. William Webster, The
Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha - A Survey of the History of the
Apocrypha from the Jewish Age to the Reformation, Christian Resources Inc.,
February, 2002, ISBN 1893531066.

7. William Webster,
David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume
III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of
Sola Scriptura, Christian Resources, Inc., October 2001, ISBN 1893531058.

No comments:

Post a Comment

ABOUT

My name is Keith Thompson. I am a Christian apologist and documentary film maker. I write for www.Answering-Islam.org and am the owner of Reformed Apologetics Ministries. I can be reached at keithtruth2010@hotmail.com